Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post Writers Group March 10, 2008
WASHINGTON - She threw the kitchen sink at him. Accused Barack Obama of plagiarism. Mocked his eloquence. Questioned his truthfulness about NAFTA.
Wasn't enough. Hillary Clinton still faced extinction in Ohio and Texas. So what do you do when you have thrown the kitchen sink? Drop the atomic bomb.
Hence that brilliant "phone call at the White House at 3 a.m." commercial. In the great tradition of Lyndon Johnson's "Daisy" ad, it was not subtle -- though in 2008 you don't actually show the nuclear explosion. It's enough just to suggest an apocalyptic crisis.
Ostensibly the ad was about experience. It wasn't. It was about familiarity. After all, as Obama pointed out, what exactly is the experience that prepares Hillary to answer the red phone at 3 a.m.?
She was raising a deeper question: Do you really know who this guy is? After a whirlwind courtship with this elegant man who rode into town just yesterday, are you really prepared to entrust him with your children, the major props in the ad?
After months of fruitlessly shadowboxing an ethereal opponent made up of equal parts hope, rhetoric and enthusiasm, Clinton had finally made contact with the enemy. The doubts she raised created just enough buyer's remorse to convince Democrats on Tuesday to not yet close the sale on the mysterious stranger.
The only way either Clinton or John McCain can defeat an opponent as dazzlingly new and fresh as Obama is to ask: Do you really know this guy?
Or the corollary: Is he really who he says he is? I'm not talking about scurrilous innuendo about his origins, religion or upbringing. I'm talking about the full-fledged man who presents himself to the country in remarkably grandiose terms as a healer, a conciliator, a uniter.
This, after all, is his major appeal. What makes him different from the other candidates, from the "old politics" he disdains, is the promise to rise above party, to take us beyond ideology and other archaic divisions, and bring us together as "one nation."
It's worked. When Americans are asked who can unite us, 67 percent say Obama versus 34 percent for Clinton, with McCain at 51.
How did Obama pull that off? By riding one of the great non sequiturs of modern American politics.
It goes like this. Because Obama transcends race, it is therefore assumed that he will transcend everything else -- divisions of region, class, party, generation and ideology.
The premise here is true -- Obama does transcend race; he has not run as a candidate of minority grievance; his vision of America is unmistakably post-racial -- but the conclusion does not necessarily follow. It is merely suggested in Obama's rhetorically brilliant celebration of American unity: "young and old, rich and poor, black and white, Latino and Asian -- who are tired of a politics that divides us." Hence "the choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white. It's about the past versus the future."
The effect of such sweeping invocations of unity is electric, particularly because race is the deepest and most tragic of all American divisions, and this invocation is being delivered by a man who takes us powerfully beyond it. The implication is that he is therefore uniquely qualified to transcend all our other divisions.
It is not an idle suggestion. It could be true. The problem is that Obama's own history suggests that, in his case at least, it is not. Indeed, his Senate record quite belies the implication.
The Obama campaign has sent journalists eight pages of examples of his reaching across the aisle in the Senate. But these are small-bore items of almost no controversy: more help for war veterans, reducing loose nukes in the former Soviet Union and the like. Bipartisan support for apple pie is hardly a profile in courage.
On the difficult compromises that required the political courage to challenge one's own political constituency, Obama flinched: the "Gang of 14" compromise on judicial appointments, the immigration compromise to which Obama tried to append union-backed killer amendments, and, just last month, the compromise on warrantless eavesdropping that garnered 68 votes in the Senate. But not Obama's.
Who, in fact, supported all of these bipartisan deals, was a central player in two of them, and brokered the even more notorious McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform? John McCain, of course.
Yes, John McCain -- intemperate and rough-edged, of sharp elbows and even sharper tongue. Turns out that uniting is not a matter of rhetoric or manner, but of character and courage.
The following is from another of Krauthammer's articles:
You might dismiss as hyperbole the complaint by the New York Times's Paul Krugman that "the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality." Until you hear Chris Matthews, who no longer has the excuse of youth, react to Obama's Potomac primary victory speech with "My, I felt this thrill going up my leg." When his MSNBC co-hosts tried to bail him out, he refused to recant. Not surprising for an acolyte who said that Obama "comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament."
Obama has an astonishingly empty paper trail. He's going around issuing promissory notes on the future that he can't possibly redeem. Promises to heal the world with negotiations with the likes of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Promises to transcend the conundrums of entitlement reform that require real and painful trade-offs and that have eluded solution for a generation. Promises to fund his other promises by a rapid withdrawal from an unpopular war -- with the hope, I suppose, that the (presumed) resulting increase in American prestige would compensate for the chaos to follow.
Democrats are worried that the Obama spell will break between the time of his nomination and the time of the election, and deny them the White House. My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude.
My Work
Forum Postings
Jacob's Room
Woolfe's Style I brought in Virginia's points about female writing and explained my perspective as such. Chapter 14 A discussion of Mrs. Flanders's reaction to the death of her son. Is this a novel? Bad assessment of what makes a novel; more of a biography than a story It's All Greek to Me Brought up Woolf's interest in classical Greece (started this topic) Jacob's rooms I suggested that the title might indicate something to pay attention to and discussed its relevance to other characters
how it ends up I discussed how the epilogue of the play contradicted the play's "no moral" concept Did Goldsmith Fail? I opened a question asking the success that Goldsmith had in keeping morals out of his plot How Everything Went Wrong Made Everything Go Right? I questioned whether the inclusion of certain societal issues constitues making an argument about them (over)analysis of names part III I discussed the possible meaning of the names of Hastings, Marlow, and the Hardcastles A Good Play? I objected to the criticism of Goldsmith's style and explained my reasoning
As I Lay Dying
Affair? I layed out my argument for why Addie cheated on Anse. Darl Knows I explained how Darl can know what goes on even when he is not around. When will I be blown up? I disputed the idea that Faulkner was against fear and I also discussed modern fears. Shouldn't Jewel Have a Say? I started a forum on the significance of Jewel's chapter and other character concerns. Vardaman's Style I discussed when Vardaman narrates and the importance of his voice in these places. Addie's Revenge I opened a topic that discusses Addie's motivation for sending the family to Jefferson. Cora Tull I gave my take on Cora Tull's character. True Motive for Cash's Obsession Over the Coffin I examined Cash's speaking for a sense of why he cared about the coffin.
The Cherry Orchard
firs I gave my opinion on why Gayef insults Firs and gave a possible relationship between Firs and the property Trophimof's Speech I proposed the possibility that Trophimof was a satirization of socialism. Lopakhin & Barbara I suggested that Lopakhin might not marry her because of his inferiority complex A String Breaking? I elaborated on the reactions to the breaking string. Uncle Vanya and The Cherry Orchard I introduced other similarities between the two plays Laughter (Or Lack Thereof) I began a thread on laughter and comedy in Uncle Vanya.
Essays
Difficulty v. Obscurity I discussed the possibility that obscure poetry may be bad poetry. I Guess It Is Poetry I argued that poetry needs a more concrete definition Applying Shepherd to Pope I related Pope's poem to the difficulties that we learned, and I also pointed out why Pope chose to make his essay a poem. But What About Beauty? I started a topic on the importance of beauty in good poetry. Field of Meanings I explained that alternate meanings is not a blank check for interpretation But What About Beauty? I clarified my position and added a reference to Pope's essay to support myself
Blank Verse, Heroic Couplet, Stanza
Then Why Read Essentially, I criticized the short-sighted words of Boland and Strand Lost in Paradise Lost I explained what Paradise Lost was about and explained why it was good. Julius Caesar I related this speech to Invisible Man and added a new question to the topic. The Lamb I opened a topic on another Blake poem, "The Lamb" Easter Wings I commented the upper half of the stanza's structure. The Prelude I answered the questions raised by other people and added my own experience in this situation Now Old, Now What? I cleared up some lexical difficulty in the poem
Table of Contents
What we don't know about Obama hurts him
Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post Writers Group March 10, 2008WASHINGTON - She threw the kitchen sink at him. Accused Barack Obama of plagiarism. Mocked his eloquence. Questioned his truthfulness about NAFTA.
Wasn't enough. Hillary Clinton still faced extinction in Ohio and Texas. So what do you do when you have thrown the kitchen sink? Drop the atomic bomb.
Hence that brilliant "phone call at the White House at 3 a.m." commercial. In the great tradition of Lyndon Johnson's "Daisy" ad, it was not subtle -- though in 2008 you don't actually show the nuclear explosion. It's enough just to suggest an apocalyptic crisis.
Ostensibly the ad was about experience. It wasn't. It was about familiarity. After all, as Obama pointed out, what exactly is the experience that prepares Hillary to answer the red phone at 3 a.m.?
She was raising a deeper question: Do you really know who this guy is? After a whirlwind courtship with this elegant man who rode into town just yesterday, are you really prepared to entrust him with your children, the major props in the ad?
After months of fruitlessly shadowboxing an ethereal opponent made up of equal parts hope, rhetoric and enthusiasm, Clinton had finally made contact with the enemy. The doubts she raised created just enough buyer's remorse to convince Democrats on Tuesday to not yet close the sale on the mysterious stranger.
The only way either Clinton or John McCain can defeat an opponent as dazzlingly new and fresh as Obama is to ask: Do you really know this guy?
Or the corollary: Is he really who he says he is? I'm not talking about scurrilous innuendo about his origins, religion or upbringing. I'm talking about the full-fledged man who presents himself to the country in remarkably grandiose terms as a healer, a conciliator, a uniter.
This, after all, is his major appeal. What makes him different from the other candidates, from the "old politics" he disdains, is the promise to rise above party, to take us beyond ideology and other archaic divisions, and bring us together as "one nation."
It's worked. When Americans are asked who can unite us, 67 percent say Obama versus 34 percent for Clinton, with McCain at 51.
How did Obama pull that off? By riding one of the great non sequiturs of modern American politics.
It goes like this. Because Obama transcends race, it is therefore assumed that he will transcend everything else -- divisions of region, class, party, generation and ideology.
The premise here is true -- Obama does transcend race; he has not run as a candidate of minority grievance; his vision of America is unmistakably post-racial -- but the conclusion does not necessarily follow. It is merely suggested in Obama's rhetorically brilliant celebration of American unity: "young and old, rich and poor, black and white, Latino and Asian -- who are tired of a politics that divides us." Hence "the choice in this election is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white. It's about the past versus the future."
The effect of such sweeping invocations of unity is electric, particularly because race is the deepest and most tragic of all American divisions, and this invocation is being delivered by a man who takes us powerfully beyond it. The implication is that he is therefore uniquely qualified to transcend all our other divisions.
It is not an idle suggestion. It could be true. The problem is that Obama's own history suggests that, in his case at least, it is not. Indeed, his Senate record quite belies the implication.
The Obama campaign has sent journalists eight pages of examples of his reaching across the aisle in the Senate. But these are small-bore items of almost no controversy: more help for war veterans, reducing loose nukes in the former Soviet Union and the like. Bipartisan support for apple pie is hardly a profile in courage.
On the difficult compromises that required the political courage to challenge one's own political constituency, Obama flinched: the "Gang of 14" compromise on judicial appointments, the immigration compromise to which Obama tried to append union-backed killer amendments, and, just last month, the compromise on warrantless eavesdropping that garnered 68 votes in the Senate. But not Obama's.
Who, in fact, supported all of these bipartisan deals, was a central player in two of them, and brokered the even more notorious McCain-Feingold campaign-finance reform? John McCain, of course.
Yes, John McCain -- intemperate and rough-edged, of sharp elbows and even sharper tongue. Turns out that uniting is not a matter of rhetoric or manner, but of character and courage.
The following is from another of Krauthammer's articles:
You might dismiss as hyperbole the complaint by the New York Times's Paul Krugman that "the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality." Until you hear Chris Matthews, who no longer has the excuse of youth, react to Obama's Potomac primary victory speech with "My, I felt this thrill going up my leg." When his MSNBC co-hosts tried to bail him out, he refused to recant. Not surprising for an acolyte who said that Obama "comes along, and he seems to have the answers. This is the New Testament."
Obama has an astonishingly empty paper trail. He's going around issuing promissory notes on the future that he can't possibly redeem. Promises to heal the world with negotiations with the likes of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Promises to transcend the conundrums of entitlement reform that require real and painful trade-offs and that have eluded solution for a generation. Promises to fund his other promises by a rapid withdrawal from an unpopular war -- with the hope, I suppose, that the (presumed) resulting increase in American prestige would compensate for the chaos to follow.
Democrats are worried that the Obama spell will break between the time of his nomination and the time of the election, and deny them the White House. My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude.
My Work
Forum Postings
Jacob's Room
Woolfe's Style I brought in Virginia's points about female writing and explained my perspective as such.Chapter 14 A discussion of Mrs. Flanders's reaction to the death of her son.
Is this a novel? Bad assessment of what makes a novel; more of a biography than a story
It's All Greek to Me Brought up Woolf's interest in classical Greece (started this topic)
Jacob's rooms I suggested that the title might indicate something to pay attention to and discussed its relevance to other characters
The Ballad
A modern ballad, or is it? I refuted TMc's argument that "Boy Named Sue" is not a balladThe Tale of Custard the Dragon I suggested that there was more than humor and fun to Custard
The Wife of Usher's Well I discussed the afterlife questions raised by this poem
Common Themes I agreed with the trend of death in ballads, and suggested humor as another unifying element
She Stoops to Conquer
how it ends up I discussed how the epilogue of the play contradicted the play's "no moral" conceptDid Goldsmith Fail? I opened a question asking the success that Goldsmith had in keeping morals out of his plot
How Everything Went Wrong Made Everything Go Right? I questioned whether the inclusion of certain societal issues constitues making an argument about them
(over)analysis of names part III I discussed the possible meaning of the names of Hastings, Marlow, and the Hardcastles
A Good Play? I objected to the criticism of Goldsmith's style and explained my reasoning
As I Lay Dying
Affair? I layed out my argument for why Addie cheated on Anse.Darl Knows I explained how Darl can know what goes on even when he is not around.
When will I be blown up? I disputed the idea that Faulkner was against fear and I also discussed modern fears.
Shouldn't Jewel Have a Say? I started a forum on the significance of Jewel's chapter and other character concerns.
Vardaman's Style I discussed when Vardaman narrates and the importance of his voice in these places.
Addie's Revenge I opened a topic that discusses Addie's motivation for sending the family to Jefferson.
Cora Tull I gave my take on Cora Tull's character.
True Motive for Cash's Obsession Over the Coffin I examined Cash's speaking for a sense of why he cared about the coffin.
The Cherry Orchard
firs I gave my opinion on why Gayef insults Firs and gave a possible relationship between Firs and the propertyTrophimof's Speech I proposed the possibility that Trophimof was a satirization of socialism.
Lopakhin & Barbara I suggested that Lopakhin might not marry her because of his inferiority complex
A String Breaking? I elaborated on the reactions to the breaking string.
Uncle Vanya and The Cherry Orchard I introduced other similarities between the two plays
Laughter (Or Lack Thereof) I began a thread on laughter and comedy in Uncle Vanya.
Essays
Difficulty v. Obscurity I discussed the possibility that obscure poetry may be bad poetry.I Guess It Is Poetry I argued that poetry needs a more concrete definition
Applying Shepherd to Pope I related Pope's poem to the difficulties that we learned, and I also pointed out why Pope chose to make his essay a poem.
But What About Beauty? I started a topic on the importance of beauty in good poetry.
Field of Meanings I explained that alternate meanings is not a blank check for interpretation
But What About Beauty? I clarified my position and added a reference to Pope's essay to support myself
Blank Verse, Heroic Couplet, Stanza
Then Why Read Essentially, I criticized the short-sighted words of Boland and StrandLost in Paradise Lost I explained what Paradise Lost was about and explained why it was good.
Julius Caesar I related this speech to Invisible Man and added a new question to the topic.
The Lamb I opened a topic on another Blake poem, "The Lamb"
Easter Wings I commented the upper half of the stanza's structure.
The Prelude I answered the questions raised by other people and added my own experience in this situation
Now Old, Now What? I cleared up some lexical difficulty in the poem
Collaborations
Discussions
External Links
Carmel Catholicbrtom.org
This page was last revised by -